Search

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials are used to estimate the causal effect of a treatment on a health outcome of interest in a patient population. Often the specified treatment in a randomized controlled trial is a medical intervention-such as a drug or procedure-experienced directly by the patient. Sometimes the "treatment" in a randomized controlled trial is a target-such as a goal biomarker measurement-that the patient's physician attempts to reach using available medications or procedures. Large randomized controlled trials of biomarker targets are common in clinical research, and trials have been conducted to compare targets in the management of hypertension, diabetes, anemia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, different randomized controlled trials intended to evaluate the same biomarker targets have produced conflicting recommendations, and meta-analyses that aggregate results of trials of biomarker targets have been inconclusive., Methods: We use causal reasoning to explain why randomized controlled trials of biomarker targets can arrive at conflicting or misleading conclusions. We describe four key threats to the validity of trials of targets: (1) intention-to-treat analysis can be misleading when a direct effect of target assignment on the outcome exists due to lack of blinding; (2) incomparability in results across trials of targets; (3) time-varying adaptive treatment strategies; and (4) Goodhart's law, "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.", Results: We illustrate these findings using evidence from 15 randomized controlled trials of blood pressure targets for management of hypertension. Randomized trials of blood pressure targets exhibit substantial variation in the trial patient populations and antihypertensives used to achieve the blood pressure targets assigned in the trials. The trials did not compare or account for time-varying treatment strategies used to reach the randomized targets. Possible "off-target" effects of antihypertensive medications needed to reach lower blood pressure targets may explain the absence of a clear benefit from intensive blood pressure control., Discussion: Researchers should critically assess meta-analyses of trials of targets for variation in the types, distributions, and off-target effects of therapies studied. Trial investigators should release detailed information about the biomarker targets compared in new randomized trials, as well as confounders, treatments delivered, and outcomes. New randomized controlled trials should experimentally compare treatment algorithms incorporating biomarkers, rather than targets alone. Causal inference methodology that adjusts for time-varying confounding should be used to compare time-varying treatment strategies in observational settings.

Background: In cluster randomized trials, patients are typically recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and consequently systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We aim to rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met., Methods: Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Furthermore, using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias., Results: When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the average treatment effect on the overall population generally differs from the average treatment effect on the recruited population. A naïve intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both average treatment effects. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the average treatment effect on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogeneous between principal strata, and the average treatment effect on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata., Conclusion: There is a need and opportunity to improve the analysis of cluster randomized trials that are subject to post-randomization selection bias. For studies prone to selection bias, it is important to explicitly specify the target population that the causal estimands are defined on and adopt design and estimation strategies accordingly. To draw valid inferences about treatment effects, investigators should (1) assess the possibility of heterogeneous treatment effects, and (2) consider collecting data on covariates that are predictive of the recruitment process, and on the non-recruited population from external sources such as electronic health records.

Background/aims: Noninferiority clinical trials are susceptible to false confirmation of noninferiority when the intention-to-treat principle is applied in the setting of incomplete trial protocol adherence. The risk increases as protocol adherence rates decrease. The objective of this study was to compare protocol adherence and hypothesis confirmation between superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trials published in three high impact medical journals. We hypothesized that noninferiority trials have lower protocol adherence and greater hypothesis confirmation., Methods: We conducted an observational study using published clinical trial data. We searched PubMed for active control, two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trials published in JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet between 2007 and 2017. The primary exposure was trial type, superiority versus noninferiority, as determined by the hypothesis testing framework of the primary trial outcome. The primary outcome was trial protocol adherence rate, defined as the number of randomized subjects receiving the allocated intervention as described by the trial protocol and followed to primary outcome ascertainment (numerator), over the total number of subjects randomized (denominator). Hypothesis confirmation was defined as affirmation of noninferiority or the alternative hypothesis for noninferiority and superiority trials, respectively., Results: Among 120 superiority and 120 noninferiority trials, median and interquartile protocol adherence rates were 91.5 [81.4-96.7] and 89.8 [83.6-95.2], respectively; P = 0.47. Hypothesis confirmation was observed in 107/120 (89.2%) of noninferiority and 64/120 (53.3%) of superiority trials, risk difference (95% confidence interval): 35.8 (25.3-46.3), P < 0.001., Conclusion: Protocol adherence rates are similar between superiority and noninferiority trials published in three high impact medical journals. Despite this, we observed greater hypothesis confirmation among noninferiority trials. We speculate that publication bias, lenient noninferiority margins and other sources of bias may contribute to this finding. Further study is needed to identify the reasons for this observed difference.

In this article, I review the key elements of the proposed International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9 Addendum, present a constructive critique, and provide recommendations of how it can be improved. To highlight ideas, I present a case study involving a confirmatory trial for a chronic pain medication.

Background: It is assumed investigators and statisticians fully understand the importance of avoiding missing outcomes and the intention-to-treat principle during design and analysis phases of a randomised controlled trial in order to obtain the most valuable and reliable results. However, many personnel undertaking day-to-day trial conduct and data collection commonly rely exclusively for guidance on the widely implemented, indeed regulated, International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice document as the guideline and standard for trial conduct., Purpose: This article describes adverse consequences of omission of intention-to-treat principles from training for trial personnel and explores the need for training in addition to the International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice guideline document., Methods: Data from the Breast Boost Study were used to illustrate a comparison of actual results, where vigilant senior investigators re-enforced intention-to-treat requirements throughout all aspects of trial conduct with results that could easily have occurred if study personnel did not understand the importance of intention-to-treat principles. Experience as a co-ordinating centre for an international trial (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.06 Breast STARS) acted as an audit of data-management culture regarding intention-to-treat in Australia and New Zealand., Results: Despite the Breast Boost Study exceeding planned accrual, it was demonstrated that the study, which found a statistically significant result, could have reported a negative or inconclusive result under the scenario of trial conduct personnel having lack of understanding of the importance of avoiding losses to follow-up. Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology 08.06 co-ordination experience verified that data-management culture in Australia and New Zealand does not adequately recognise intention-to-treat principles, and this is reflected in trial conduct., Limitations: Trial data described are limited to two trials and in the Australian and New Zealand setting., Conclusion: To be both scientifically and ethically valid, guidelines for trial conduct should include and stress the importance of the intention-to-treat principle and in particular avoiding missing outcomes. Our discussion highlights the vitally important role played by personnel involved in day-to-day trial conduct. Inclusion of scientific principles in guideline documents and/or training which goes beyond International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practice to include intention-to-treat is essential to achieve robust research results. Related aspects of randomised trial consent and ethics are discussed., (© The Author(s) 2014.)